Dialogue Topic 3

Dear Friends,

Here at San Carlos University (Guatemala )we have good experience of voluntary partnerships. In the year 2001 we obtained the Sasakawa Award jointly with the UN Voluntary Program for a project in risk management and prevention at local community level, in the East of the country. Now the University is running for the second year a disaster training course, in which, again, partnership with NGOs and local and international institutions has been a good strategy. So a wide range of options can be found for looking at and working with the concept of partnerships,

Omar G. Flores Beltetón (Guatemala)

Dear all,

I agree with the proposed operational criteria and modalities. I do, however, have two suggestions to add.

1) The first suggestion is that the wording of this phrase (“The mechanism is open to any combination of governments, local authorities, and major civil society organizations including NGOs and the private sector”) should be rephrased to emphasize the value of using the media as a major partner in Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation (DPM).

The ISDR secretariat (as facilitator of partnerships) could provide mechanisms whereby local and international media are encouraged to become key partners in the promotion of DPM information. For instance, if the BBC alone became involved in promoting DPM, imagine how many millions would have access to lifesaving information. This information may be as simple as a one-phrase sentence or paragraph that would scroll at the bottom of the screen at the beginning or end of each emission (i.e. X% of deaths during floods are due to people attempting to drive in flood water). As organizations are often willing to invest in community service work, the media and for profit companies can pay for these very brief messages.

2) The other suggestion is that the ISDR facilitate partnerships that focus on promoting local rural communities’ and the urban poor’s access to disaster literature. Much of the preparedness / mitigation measures that can be taken are easy to implement/self-teach but the problem lies in these groups’ access to information that is language/culture sensitive. I suggest: improving individuals’ and community groups’ access to disaster literature by encouraging for-profit businesses, NGOs and other non-government and government groups to partner in translating, carrying and disbursing such literature free of charge (of course it could get expensive but partnerships with for-profit groups could help defray the costs). There is much disaster management literature/advice “in English” online but it is of course often inaccessible due to lack of access to funds to pay for internet use and/or lack of access to internet facilities. This is an example of an additional task that the ISDR secretariat could foresee.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate.
Hibak Hersi

Dear all,

I agree with Iqbal Zuberi(Bangladesh). In any developing and disaster prone country, voluntary partnership is one of the sustainable mechanisms available to reduce disaster risk and to perform other disaster related activities.

I would like to share one of our experiences in Nepal where we have mobilized local communities to form or strengthen community organizations. Such community organizations/institutions are called Self-Governing Community Organizations (SGCOs). Such SGCOs are formed if there are none or strengthened if they are already there. They comprise both men and women or are separate men’s/women’s groups depending upon the situation. We found that such SGCOs are instrumental in mobilizing local communities, resource mobilization, and serve as a bridge between local community and outsiders. In many cases, SGCOs are now registered with the local administrative office as NGOs. We have seen that such SGCOs are able to mobilize resources locally and from outside, to design, implement and monitor/evaluate disaster mitigation activities/ measures. After all, such organizations/institutions are the first responders to any disaster. Therefore, all our efforts should be to build their (and the local community's) capacity in voluntary partnership.

Man Thapa (Nepal)

I would like to raise the following issues.

1) Education. Education for preparedness is the key for better disaster management, as several participants have pointed out. The issue is also 'how to educate'. While it is essential to have things in the curriculum, it is not enough that children learn the 'theory' of disaster preparedness from textbooks. It will then be just another piece of information they memorize and forget. To really make a difference, the methodologies used for such education have to be more active and participatory--from simulations, to case-study based learning, to disaster mapping, to drills. The Centre for Environment Education, India has been involved in developing such materials for schools and would be happy to share information with anyone interested.

Another important thing is that the awareness and education regarding disasters needs to be really locale-specific: it is not enough that people are told in general terms what to do. To be effective, they need to know what to do when a particular disaster hits THEM, in their city, town, village. Everyone will recall that the tragedy of Bhopal was accentuated because the doctors did not know what were the chemicals leaking out and therefore what to do for those affected. Participatory processes of disaster mapping and preparedness planning involving all stakeholders, are good ways to bring about this awareness. Good quality information and access to this for all stakeholders is key. Another problem is that soon after a disaster, there is a flurry of activities on creating awareness and education. But with fading memories of the crisis, the need for such education remains only in intention and other priorities take over. So we do need some interested party--NGOs, government disaster related agencies, etc., who see it as their mandate to focus and advocate for this and keep this in the public eye.

2) Partnerships and capacity building at community level. A disaster focuses attention on the site of the disaster. Many agencies - government, NGOs, donors - all come to that site to contribute to rescue, rehabilitation, etc. But this partnership with the community must be seen in a long term perspective by all partners concerned. The capacities of all the partners must be harnessed for the overall development of the place, in the long term. It is rare that so many institutions with so many different capacities come into a place and the communities must be able to take advantage of this, on their terms, in a slightly long term perspective. In other words, the tragedy of the disaster must be turned into an opportunity. There are several examples of this in Gujarat, following the earthquake of 2001. Several agencies who came in immediately after the disaster, have stayed on, built partnerships with the community and taken up long term development initiatives in the areas of education, natural resource management, institutional development, etc.

3) Livelihoods. It is true, as several people have pointed out, that it is the poorest who are affected most. Related to this is the fact that a number of rehabilitation efforts focus on reconstruction of houses, schools, facilities, infrastructure, etc. The crucial issue of restoring livelihoods is not always addressed in the really sensitive and meaningful way in which it should be. This issue of livelihoods has to be looked at in two ways. First is restoring livelihoods in the immediate term: for example, providing access to seeds and agricultural implements etc. which may have been destroyed, to enable farming activities in the immediate agricultural season. But the other aspect is also seeing this as an opportunity for building capacities for enhancing sustainable livelihood options--through analysis of what are the options in a particular place, what is the training required, what are the macro-linkages required, etc., and putting these in place.

Meena Raghunathan (India)

Re: discussions about financial services to help protect the poor against disasters.
We have been providing targeted credit for the preventive strengthening of houses in Viet Nam since 2002, and the reponse locally has been excellent - large take up by the population (all extremely poor) and a very good repayment rate. Families clearly consider that taking out credit for house strengthening is a way of securing the environment in which they live and work.

John Norton (France)

Re: discussions about financial services to help protect the poor against disasters
In response to Mr. R Kuberan’s comment on this subject, I would like to share our experience. The flats (in an urban area) where I live have comprise 9 towers with 40 flats each. Only 2% of the owners have insurance for the flats, the rest do not. Reasons: definitely, some can not afford it, but some think that disasters won't happen again and again, so why waste money on premiums ? In rural India, it is difficult for the majority of farmers to obtain insurance, hence innovative financial and insurance schemes are required for them. Yet those farmers who can afford premiums, still don't. Reasons: either they are ignorant or casual. People's awareness is important and I think we forget the immense role that positive media can play here.

Meena Bilgi (India)

Re: discussions about financial services to help protect the poor against disasters

In response to R. Kuberan, Your observation about the problem of partnerships involving financial services when poverty is prevalent is important. Certainly many formal financial services do not operate in areas where financial markets are shallow. However, there are growing numbers of examples of partnerships where informal credit, micro-credit, local level cooperatives have been used to help spread the risk of natural disasters. Such examples also fall under the category of "financial services." Formal insurance may be used, but the concept of insurance--that of sharing risk between parties--is probably of most value when talking about financial services and partnerships to address disaster risks. My comments and examples certainly intend to include informal as well as formal financial services mechanisms. Your comment gave me the opportunity to clarify that point a little bit.

Thanks. Best,
Koko Warner (Switzerland)

A disaster destroys not only structures but also relations between people and their own culture. External intervention here in Italy follows political paths, politicians use the post-disaster funding and intervention to gain political consensus as well as to gain personal wealth.

Another issue. The discussion of this topic is very generic. I have not seen any quantitative parameters, like time of responses to a disaster from current structures and/or agencies. I would like to see a list of requirements for different situations.

Paolo Barratini (Italy)

Dear Colleagues,

Your continued participation in the ongoing e-conference encouraged me to take part in it. We are currently trying to implement a voluntary partnership activity in two flood-vulnerable areas. I would like to share my experience on this with you.

Flood is a frequent phenomenon in Bangladesh. Examining historical extreme flood events, especially those occurring in 1987, 1988 and in 1998, one can easily identify voluntary partnerships of various forms: between poor households and the local elites; community based organizations and government; national non-government organizations and the government; international NGOs and the government; and finally, between local NGOs and international NGOs. A brief account of such ‘adaptation efforts’ has recently been published by the Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI) in the Abstract Volume in preparation for the 13th Stockholm Water Week (SIWI Conference)(Ahmed, 2003).

Recently, we at the BUP Centre for Water and Environment, in association with the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), have been promoting people’s self-help in local-level flood management, through the involvement of the local government leaders and local people. In doing so, as a test case, we developed a “Community-based Flood Management Strategy (CFMS)” for flood-vulnerable areas of the country, in consultation with local people. This was firmed up by presenting in a series of Focus Group Discussions (FGD) and through participatory rural appraisal (PRA) methods.

The development of the CFMS was followed by development of a ‘Community-based Flood Management Manual (CFMM)’ where specific aspects of community self-help have been highlighted. This product was again presented to the local people for field testing. When finalized, we imparted training to about four flood-vulnerable communities on various aspects of CFMM. This has immediately been put into practice by two model flood-vulnerable areas (Union Parishads – the smallest tier of the Government) during this monsoon. We have early results from such activities and it appeared to all concerned as a new mode of voluntary partnership, with a goal to manage flood through a series of self-help and community-based activities, has initiated a new approach to community-based flood management.

We are excited about the early success of the programme. It is expected that the CFMS will become a model for the ‘Comprehensive Disaster Management Programme’ of the Government and it will address a number of elements of IPRSP as well as MDGs. Only time will say, how far the concept of CFMS might be translated into a regular practice at the grassroots.

If you are interested to know more about the action research, I shall be glad to provide more information on this.

Thanks.
Ahsan Uddin Ahmed (Bangladesh)

The exhibition initiative uses understood concepts and integrated activities to make “people” discover the dimensions of the phases of disaster reduction. It was quite simple but also effective. It is not necessary to have a large budget for education programmes. The art of learning scenarios should be simple. That is why an “alphabet" (see below) has been an adequate tool for visual impact presentation and learning processes.

In terms of global disaster management, the idea maybe nowadays sounds quite naïve, but we know from experience that a crisis event is not a good moment to show the capabilities of prevention, that is why previous “education” on understanding global and local levels, crosscutting actions and domains is required. The work should be done on different levels: scientific and technical; organisational and institutional, financial and socio-economic; and on the level of data policy.

Please note that some of the following examples are not disaster as meaning but process connections as disaster understanding… that is one of the examples of volunteer presentation:

“from A Atmospheric and Air pollution (aerosols)… from B Biomass Reduction… from C Coastal Erosion, Cyclone… from D Desertification, Deforestation… from E Earthquake, Epidemiological risk… from F Floods, Food security, Fires… from G Glacier Melt… from H Hazardous material, Haze Fog… from I Ice melting (Snow hazard)… from J Jungle deforestation… from K Kilometre disaster (actuation areas & mapping)… from L Landsides, Land degradation… from M Mudslides… from N el Niño… from O Oil Spills. Ocean storm, ozone reduction… from P Prolonged drought, Plagued, pollution general… from Q Quick look to disasters / quick analysis… from R Refugees… from S Storms, seismic areas… from T Tsunami, Transportation accidents… from U urban planning for reconstruction… from V volcanic eruption… from W windstorm… from X axis representation & understanding… from Y Yellow substances- pollution identification and water quality… from Z Zone disaster”

The identified disasters and events should be interrelated by information fluxes, diagrams, etc... as the following fields examples which are introducing the contents for the exhibition:

• Alphabet letter
• Disaster type
• Cycle: atmosphere, biosphere, hydrosphere, criosphere
• Process connections: damage assessment, fluxes interaction and parameters
• Phases of mitigation (pre-crisis-post): rescue, mitigation, cleaning up and reconstruction
• Work levels: space community, institutions & organizations decision makers, users…
• Chain structure: technical, organizational, operational, finance, educational…
• Needs and resources: coordination & political integration, capacity building,…)
• Database: development, network, assessment experience, cooperation, collaboration…

A complementary understanding should integrate and reflect on:

• General needs
• Information needs
• Information sources
• Integration & analysis

The exhibition will host activities integrating the meaning of disaster management: Procedural and attitudinal activities will introduce the idea of capacity learning and capabilities, studying the scenarios of disaster management as a subject, the crisis processes, integration of information and evolution will give an opportunity to use no cost methodologies as a learning & prevention tool. Objectives, contents, instruments, contribution to the programme, description of the measure, community added value... etc will be also identified.

Unfortunately all nations have experienced different kind of disasters (natural & technical), why not coordinated all lessons learned experiences to prevent duplication efforts?

Hopefully the words above have a little bit of sense, I hope.
With my best regards to all of you,

Mónica Miguel Lago (Spain)

Comments on the message of Koko Warner (Switzerland) and others.

I agree that financial services will be essential for disaster mitigation, especially in the recovery and rehabilitation phase. There should be insurance for life, property, crops, livestock, etc.

However, in developing countries, most people who are affected by disasters are either below or close to the poverty line, and they may not be able to pay for the services of insurance companies. In such cases innovative schemes will be necessary for bringing these people under insurance coverage, with very low and affordable premium rates. This can be in the form of group insurance or compulsory insurance, or subsidised by government.

R Kuberan (Vietnam)

Dear colleagues

The disaster (flood) of February 2002 in the city of La Paz (Bolivia), was a nice experience of voluntary help. The population spontaneously went to the streets to help those affected, providing food, clothes, working hours, tools, etc. Something that I never have seen in my life, because it involved people of all the social levels and ages. But such potential is wasted when not enough technical assistance is given to facing potential emergencies.

In my field experiences, I have noticed that the most depressed social groups show the most solidarity in emergency situations.

Concerning voluntary partnerships, my contributions are the following:

• Voluntary associations should be established under a main principle: solidarity.
• It is necessary that voluntary partnerships are involved in defined structures and take part in programs of risk reduction at local, national, regional level.
• Voluntary partnerships doesn't have to be a parallel topic to those previously outlined in this dialogue.
• It is difficult to demand that people take part in voluntary partnerships in societies where the potential contributors are unemployed. Unemployment is a great problem in Latin America and the Caribbean and I suppose in other places.
• When people have employment or incomes to live on, they will able to contribute to voluntary partnerships for risk reduction or other issues.
• It is important to motivate children and young people to take action in risk reduction as part of voluntary partnerships.
• It is important to rescue the potentialities of society in risk reduction.
• Technical support is also very important in voluntary partnerships.

Best Regards
Maria Nadiezda Otero (Bolivia)

I hope this information may be helpful to some of our friends working with local communities in establishing voluntary partnerships.

Meda Gurudutt Prasad (India)

Dear colleagues,

During the last five years our NGO Communidad (El Salvador) has been working on local development with a focus on natural disasters. Once the main local actors have been identirfed, the methodology has been on sensitizing them about the prevention of risk within local development (and on emergency intervention when natural events produce disasters). The whole focus should be based on the voluntary participation of the actors: mayors, the local governments' elected members, local leaders, professionals, and citizens in general.

To reach the final objective – that is to combine the development of local potentialities and the decrease of the impacts of the natural events with disaster character – voluntary partnerships were formed for:

1. historical investigation into past disasters, their impact and their possible repetition;
2. building awareness that a disastrous event can be repeated, and therefore that it is necessary to prevent it with social preparation, technical observation and technical interventions;
3. the creation of a simple computer technology adapted to the conditions of local society for observation and simulation, comprehensible to most of the citizens so that everybody is involved in prevention;
4. training of local leaders and school teachers to produce communication instruments with the purpose also of maintaining the alertness of the population;
5. developing manuals and appropriate training courses adapted to the responsibilities of all the actors and their capacities for understanding the prevention of risks development of local potential.

This methodology has been applied (in different ways according to the project and the place) in Colombia (Pereira), El Salvador (Guadalupe), Dominican Republic, Honduras (20 Municipalities of the North East) and Algeria (50 Municipalities of the North East).

R Kuberan (Vietnam) said that in a developing country, government officials may not take sufficient interest in running a partnership. But the involvement of relevant government organisations and officials is very important.

So far I agree with Elizabeth Benites who indicates that “Legislators should be better linked with national implementing authorities (e.g. health, education, tourism, finances and environment); and local authorities (e.g. municipality, health, education, tourism, environment, chamber of commerce, foundations)to make them aware of potential disaster/public health crises.” All the external influences should point to the creation of a “local partnership climax” where the mayor and local elected people are aware of the early warning system and the permanent risk preparation team. And I also agree that early warning systems must have agreement between all actors, public and private, corporations and individual.

Best regards
Massimo de Franchi (El Salvador

Dear Colleagues,

The on-line conference has entered into the 3rd phase and I believe that the constructive and insightful comments so far mentioned here will be of productive input for the WCDR. Since topic three is quite important in
terms of identifying concrete and practical ways to implement disaster reduction initiatives, the following points seem to be imperative to design effective operational modalities at the ground level.

1. It has been pointed out by various studies and discussed at so many forums that disaster reduction is a MUST for ensuring sustainable development. The correlation between disaster characteristics and human
   development variables always suggests that there should be a community centered and proactive implementation mechanism to ensure development is sustained.
   
2. The UN has already identified the Millennium Development Goals. Without a strong linking mechanism between disaster reduction initiatives and formulas to achieve the MDGs, I believe that the desired results and benefits of development cannot be achieved. Essential livelihood assets and options necessary to support the poorest to bounce back should be facilitated through this linking mechanism.
   
3. There must be an initiative to mainstream access to public and development resources by the local households in the context of disaster reduction. This could be realised through linkages and relationship-building with inter and intra community service providers, leading to the empowerment of the who are the victims and first responders to disasters.
   
4. There must be a link established between disaster reduction initiatives and existing UN development frameworks. I would like to stress that organizations at the grass-root level and local NGOs could be brought under this framework to ensure the horizontal and vertical relationship between the line agencies to ensure smooth implementation of strategies.
   
5. Involvement of communities is essential to raise awareness of disaster risk reduction. In this connection, partnerships with participation of communities should be developed. It is equally important to establish national mechanisms, involving the international community, to support partnerships so that their activities would be effective and efficient.

Masayuki KITAMOTO (Japan)

Vietnam experience

As already mentioned in my contribution to Topic 2, a Natural Disaster Mitigation Partnership (NDM-Partnership) was set-up in Vietnam and the first phase of the partnership was implemented successfully. The following is the summary of the effectiveness of the partnership mechanism in Vietnam. Some information given here may be repetitive of my earlier contribution.

The idea of setting up a partnership for DM was conceived after devastating flood disasters in 1999. It took over two years to bring the partners together, to complete the formalities and to establish a Secretariat. The Government of Vietnam, several donor countries and many International NGOs formed the partners.

In a period of about 20 months (the first phase of the partnership) a good information sharing mechanism (website: http://www.undp.org.vn/ndm-partnership; quarterly newsletter) was set-up. The newsletter and website have been appreciated by many organisations that have used the information from these sources.

Coordination among the partners was much improved. The partnership Secretariat encouraged a regular information-sharing-monthly meeting of the INGOs, involved the donors and government agencies into the group and developed tools and methodologies for making joint assessment of disaster relief need after a disaster. This eliminated the necessity for each NGO to send a team to the field for assessing the requirements before planning relief activities, as was being practised earlier.

However, certain objectives of the partnership could not be achieved – the most important being “policy dialogue”. The main reason for this was identified as minimal involvement of the relevant government agency, despite commitment. Therefore when the second phase of the partnership was designed, capacity building within the government system was also incorporated.

Having played a key role in the NDM-Partnership in Vietnam, I would like to make the following observations:

• A partnership with government agencies, donor countries, NGOs and other social organisations and private sector organisations will be successful in disaster mitigation if all parties willingly cooperate with each other.
• The partnership concept, though it may be slow in the beginning, will eventually work in bringing about coordination and cooperation among the partners.
• In a developing country, government officials may not take sufficient interest in running a partnership. But the involvement of relevant government organisations and officials is very important.
• UN agencies can definitely play a key role in bringing about partnerships for disaster mitigation.
• If an UN agency or a Government agency plays the lead role, the partnership will achieve success quickly.
• The government should be transparent to provide relevant information on policy issues and should be open for discussion among the partners for the ultimate benefit of the nation.
• Collecting together various NGOs to form a partnership will also be not that easy in the beginning, as various NGOs may be competing against each other in their field activities, and fund raising for their activities.
• Donor commitment is essential for meeting the running expenditure of the partnership. In order to ensure continued donor interest, all partners should be continuously informed about developments and should be involved in various activities of the partnership, by following a participatory approach.

R. Kuberan (Vietnam)

See part III of support document: Voluntary partnerships

For details about the WCDR and its preparatory process, please click here www.unisdr.org/wcdr

• Are the proposed operational criteria and modalities sufficient to ensure effective partnerships?
• What modalities should be put in place to link the WSSD and WCDR partnerships and enhance their effectiveness?
• Should the ISDR secretariat foresee additional tasks as facilitator of the partnership mechanism?
• Please provide information, contacts and lessons from experience of relevant partnerships to enhance the success of the proposed partnership mechanism.